9900KS in October (and other Intel news)

[yolosnail]

8 hours ago, williamcll said:

Yes but when will we get the i9-9900HKS lap melter?

I prefer the term ball boiler

[Velcade]

17 hours ago, porina said:

I never looked at silicon lottery, is the 9900K 100% 5 GHz capable? Even then, I'd take a CPU that Intel says is stable at 5 GHz long before I'd take one from silicon lottery, as their test method is limited in scope.

SL claims only 30% of the chips tested hit 5.0 or higher.

 

 

5.0 from the factory is great.  I'll probably pick one up for some testing.

[5x5]

Okay, few questions.

 

One, does it come with the water chiller in the box or do I buy that separately for 999.99$?

 

Two, will the real 200W TDP be listed or are we still pretending the 9900KS is a "95W" part?

 

Three, when will the CTS Labs review come? As we know, they are the best source for bullshit reviews

 

Four, can I use it to cook burgers in the morning while playing my favourite game at 480p 50000fps?

 

Five and last, why on earth would this even be released? It only serves to show how bad the desktop 10nm situation is with yet another 14+++++++ milking attempt

[porina]

7 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

One, does it come with the water chiller in the box or do I buy that separately for 999.99$?

Based on my 8086k manual overclock to 5 GHz, a high end air cooler should be sufficient. I know I only have 6 cores compared to 8, but there's so much thermal headroom 2 extra cores wouldn't matter.

 

7 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Two, will the real 200W TDP be listed or are we still pretending the 9900KS is a "95W" part?

Base clock is 4 GHz, so people are guessing it'll be rated to around 130W or so.

[5x5]

1 minute ago, porina said:

Based on my 8086k manual overclock to 5 GHz, a high end air cooler should be sufficient. I know I only have 6 cores compared to 8, but there's so much thermal headroom 2 extra cores wouldn't matter.

 

Base clock is 4 GHz, so people are guessing it'll be rated to around 130W or so.

Well two extra cores is 25% more heat. So I'm guessing it's going to need more cooling.

 

And I honestly hope they drop the act and admit that the bloody thing is a 170-200W CPU and needs an adequate board and cooler.

[Wyzzy Moon]

remember the FX9590?
"oh no, the compatition is doing better than we are, let's take our best CPU (8350), overclock it and scream 5Ghz everwhere!"

Seems similar

[Tristerin]

Introducing the 9900KY, it lubes you up as it takes your money!

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, 5x5 said:

Well two extra cores is 25% more heat. So I'm guessing it's going to need more cooling.

 

And I honestly hope they drop the act and admit that the bloody thing is a 170-200W CPU and needs an adequate board and cooler.

It'll have a TDP of 65W by Intel's standards of measuring TDP so all is fine yo!

[5x5]

13 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

It'll have a TDP of 65W by Intel's standards of measuring TDP so all is fine yo!

Introducing our entirely new 9990KS Meme Edition with a power draw of 65 Watts*

 

*At idle

[Sauron]

Yeah, bring on the 600$ g̥̲͆̅Ä̮̭̼́ͭ̊ṃ̙̜̌̄͗I̟̘͖ͭͧ͛̀nG̃ chips so we can gain 3 fps at 1080p and leave a quarter to a half of the CPU parked because no game actually pegs 8 cores. Oh, and if you plan on using it for anything else I'd bet the 3900x still eats it alive with few exceptions.

 

Intel pls

20 hours ago, Princess Luna said:

I guess I'll go to registry and rename my i9 9900K to i9 9900KS since it's already at 5ghz... you know, it's free bragging rights!

Ik right? What's the point of 1upping their own unlocked CPUs by slightly raising the clock speed?

[Sauron]

27 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Introducing our entirely new 9990KS Meme Edition with a power draw of 65 Watts*

 

*At idle

*when it's not connected to the outlet

[porina]

 

37 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Oh, and if you plan on using it for anything else I'd bet the 3900x still eats it alive with few exceptions.

I recently bought a new 7920X for same street price as a 3900X.  3900X will probably win in consumer grade workloads, but 7920X will destroy it in floats, and I'm not joking I have a chiller to see how far I can go overclocking it. Also 3900X pricing currently is inflated due to shortage, so it will probably drop eventually. Maybe the day the 3950X comes out, if more than 2 people can buy it.

 

37 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Ik right? What's the point of 1upping their own unlocked CPUs by slightly raising the clock speed?

Not everyone overclocks unlocked CPUs.

[G00fySmiley]

who is this for? a 9900k is already basically maxing out settings with a high end GPu like a 2080ti at 120+ fps 4k. is it just so somebody can make up for having a small winky or something by saying look at the clock speeds of my silicone? Its liek in the car world a person buyign a Z06 as a daily driver for a 5 mile in city commute... dude you are not using any of that power save the money and get a normal vette... it still a vette and more power than you need. 

[MeatFeastMan]

15 minutes ago, G00fySmiley said:

who is this for? a 9900k is already basically maxing out settings with a high end GPu like a 2080ti at 120+ fps 4k. is it just so somebody can make up for having a small winky or something by saying look at the clock speeds of my silicone? Its liek in the car world a person buyign a Z06 as a daily driver for a 5 mile in city commute... dude you are not using any of that power save the money and get a normal vette... it still a vette and more power than you need. 

It's pathetic review tactics. They know the 9900KS at 5ghz will be a good 10%-ish faster in gaming than the 9900k will, so they are basically giving reviewers such as Linus and the rest to re-review the 9900k by reviewing the 9900KS and declaring it 'a clear winner over zen2' to get good headlines.

 

I hope that the reviewers will not let Intel get away with this nonsense and refuse to review this thing. Linus didn't want to review the RX 590, so surely it applies to this thing too.

[G00fySmiley]

2 minutes ago, MeatFeastMan said:

It's pathetic review tactics. They know the 9900KS at 5ghz will be a good 10%-ish faster in gaming than the 9900k will, so they are basically giving reviewers such as Linus and the rest to re-review the 9900k by reviewing the 9900KS and declaring it 'a clear winner over zen2' to get good headlines.

 

I hope that the reviewers will not let Intel get away with this nonsense and refuse to review this thing.

I get that play by intel, they want the spotlight of "oo we have the gaming crown... nevermind that half our lord, ladies, dukes, ducheses, princes and princesses are getting thier asses handed to them down market. also we are losing our larger server space territory... but gaming crown at the top end WOOO! Also for reviewers i mean it s story and they need the views. i just hope we get sassy cat Linus, the Linus that occasionally turn up (see the RTX 207 review for sassy Linus) Like "yes intel we get it, you currently have the top rung on the ladder, now how about bringing the rest of your line to price match performance so we can have some real choices."

 

[porina]

40 minutes ago, G00fySmiley said:

how about bringing the rest of your line to price match performance so we can have some real choices."

I never understood this type of comment. If you think the AMD product is cheaper and better for you, why do you care at all what Intel charges? Choice isn't as simple as some around here make out.

[G00fySmiley]

3 minutes ago, porina said:

I never understood this type of comment. If you think the AMD product is cheaper and better for you, why do you care at all what Intel charges? Choice isn't as simple as some around here make out.

because competitive markets are a good thing?

 

I mean my rig is an 8700k because at the time it was the best $ to performance in my price range. figured I would buy it and be good for 4-5 years looks to still be on track for that)

 

built my 7 year old a gaming PC for his birthday best performance per $ was a Ryzen 7 2700x so i wen with that, likely be a good pc for him for 5-7 years (other than maybe a GPU upgrade down the line) 

 

If intel corrects their price more in line with performance it makes recommending CPUs an easier task. Also if Intel drops prices, there is a possibility AMD reevaluates and drops some of their own prices. As a consumer this is best case and both companies can battle it out on price to give the end user the most incentive to buy their chips.

 

is a Ryzen 5 3600 at $195 better than a i5 9600k at $220? yes absolutely. There is very little reason to buy the 9600k at current prices... now let me ask you this, is a $175 9600k worth buying over a $195 Ryzen 5 3600?  I think that is about the point the 9600k becomes attractive

[porina]

11 minutes ago, G00fySmiley said:

because competitive markets are a good thing?

The difficulty that is often overlooked is that there are different areas of strengths and weaknesses between the CPUs, and it isn't so clear cut one is always better than another. This is something I'm testing myself, at a more architectural level than model level to get a feel for where things sit. Before Zen 2, there were still some major gaps in areas between red and blue, that were often overlooked when Cinebench gets wheeled out to demonstrate thread scaling in near ideal scenario. Zen 2 does change things a lot, and its core architecture beats Intel in almost all areas. However, at a chip scale, the wider architecture that allows scaling is also its weakness. With a monolithic CPU, the whole CPU is often the largest unit you have to worry about. On Ryzen, the unit is now a CCX, not even a CCD. Combined with half bandwidth writes from a CCD, it will alter the way it is used to retain as much of its peak performance as possible. So I now have a situation that a single Intel CPU can be faster at a single task, yet a Zen 2 Ryzen might have better throughput but you have to run multiple tasks to extract it. Interesting times!

 

Linked below is some of that testing I've done.